e16110 Background: Sunitinib, an inhibitor of multiple tyrosine kinases, is FDA approved for metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC). Though better tolerated than historical therapies, sunitinib is associated with adverse events (AEs) that may require dose modifications (DM). We sought to identify 1) baseline patient (pt) characteristics that predispose for DM, 2) the most common AEs requiring DM in a non-protocol setting, and 3) the impact of dose limiting AEs on treatment continuation. Methods: Single-center, retrospective chart review. Pts ≥ 18 years of age with mRCC of clear-cell histology on sunitinib therapy with active follow-up at MDACC were eligible. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis of 66 pt variables (demographics, laboratory analysis, past medical and treatment history, etc) and dose-limiting AEs was completed, with a 6 month endpoint of sunitinib continuation, alternative therapy, or death. Results: From January 1, 2006 through September 30, 2007, 146 pts were identified meeting eligibility criteria. By univariate analysis, increased age (p=0.04; OR 1.04, 1.002–1.081 CI) and elevated BUN (p=0.03; OR 1.06, 1.006 –1.108 CI) were directly associated with increased incidence of dose-limiting AEs. ECOG PS of 2 (p=0.04; OR 0.3, 0.114–0.951 CI) was associated with a decreased incidence of dose limiting AEs. In a multivariate analysis, only BUN remained significant. 57% of patients (n= 83) had dose-limiting AEs. DM were often attributed to multiple AEs (55%), with fatigue, mucositis, hand-foot syndrome and nausea being the most common. At 6 months follow-up, 63% of pts with dose-limiting AEs remained on sunitinib vs. 37% (p=0.18). There was no difference in death rate at 6 months between the two groups. Conclusions: Elevated baseline BUN is associated with an increased rate of DM in patients with RCC receiving sunitinib. Despite the high-incidence of AEs, pts can be maintained on sunitinib with DM and without an adverse impact on outcome. Whether specific AEs are biologic indicators of activity should be evaluated in a larger clinical trial. [Table: see text]